Digest Mid East Studies - 2019 - Abdulmajid - Media and Ideology in The Middle East A Critical Discourse Analysis

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical
Discourse Analysis
Adib Abdulmajid, PhD
University of Leuven
Flanders, Belgium
Abstract
This study explores the ideologization of media discourse in the Middle East through
investigating political influences over leading media corporations in the region. A
critical discourse analysis was applied to news reports issued by prominent Middle
Eastern media giants Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The research data included eight
news articles from both media outlets. Thus, four articles from each corporation
have been studied and analyzed in an effort to realize the objectives of the study at
hand. Blass’s Manipulative Strategies… and van Dijk’s Ideological Square… consti-
tuted primary methodological instruments within the framework of this research.
The findings indicate an explicit impact of local political agendas on the discourse
and editorial policies of each of the studied media corporations, which emerge in
violation with the claimed journalistic commitment to objectivity and impartiality
in terms of news reporting.
Key words: media discourse, ideologization, politicization, manipulation, ideological discourse, CDA,
Middle East, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera
Introduction
B esides its significant potential to influence our worldview and stimulate certain
attitudes toward developments in our direct or indirect environment, media is
said to hold the power to indoctrinate us (Berger, 2012:16). Over the recent years,
the Middle East has continuously emerged as a conflict-driven region with political
disputes and instability considerably overshadowing numerous of its states, and the
media arose at the core of such developments. Matters of ownership and censorship
unfolded as key to the way leading media corporations in the region tackled domestic
as well as regional events. Given the matrix of political alliances and socioeconomic
ties that came to define major media outlets in the region, political influences over the
discourse of such corporations surfaced during the coverage of each and every single
event. Ownership within the media industry is deemed “a serious policy issue as it
affects the ability of the media to fulfill their constitutional responsibility of hold-
ing the state accountable,” and thus the challenge to “insulate the media from both
DOI: 10.1111/dome.12179
Digest of Middle East Studies—Volume 28, Number 1—Pages 23–47
© 2019 Policy Studies Organization. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
19493606, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dome.12179 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [01/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Digest of Middle East Studies
political and economic pressure” persists and grows (Akpojivi, 2018:72), especially
in states that lack or suppress basic rights principles such as freedom of speech. The
Middle East undeniably contains rich examples of such states. The extremely polit-
icized discourse of Middle Eastern media giants under study, namely Qatar-based
Al- Jazeera and Saudi-led Al Arabiya, reaches the degree of ideologization in that it
enormously focuses on and emphasizes the negativity of actions on the part of the
perceived political rivals and exaggeratingly stresses the positive aspects of policies
and practices pursued by the party/parties they implicitly or explicitly represent or
advocate. Kraidy (2007) maintains that both channels “ride the wave of high energy
prices. Qatari natural gas is Al Jazeera’s lifeblood; Saudi oil is Al Arabiya’s” (Kraidy,
2007:160). Such editorial policies are believed to employ certain discursive practices
in a bid to trigger resentment among the audience toward the party/parties addressed
in deeply negative terms and mobilize support around those referred to with partic-
ularly positive articulations.
The involvement of political actors in, and their interaction with media practices
and discourses enable them, as influential players, to design as well as demarcate the
impact of media on society. Such an interaction is referred to by Kissas (2013:8) as
technologies of politics that imply “discursive practices and discursive formations” man-
ifested in media items and emphasized by its producers. Once entangled in political
agendas, whether through the intervention of political actors in power or due to the
political tendencies of its authors, media discourse deviates from the ethical objective
of enlightening the recipients and descends into manipulation instead. Manipulation
at a discursive level, as van Dijk (2006a) puts it, involves “the usual forms and formats
of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing speaker’s good things, and emphasizing
other’s bad things” (p. 359). Hence, politically driven, agenda-guided media discourse
strives to indoctrinate and ideologize its recipients.
The outbreak of the 2017 Gulf crisis, also known as the Qatar Diplomatic Crisis
or the GCC-Qatar Crisis,1 is believed to have dragged Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya into
a direct confrontation in the media arena, with each organization tirelessly defending
and advocating the political standpoint and agenda of the state it principally represents
or to which it is organically tied. Given the rather explicit involvement of Al Jazeera
and Al Arabiya in this political crisis and the associated developments, the discourse
employed by both organizations in this particular phase of their history attracted the
attention and triggered the interest of this researcher to conduct this study.
This research aims to examine the discourse of Qatar-based Al Jazeera and Saudi-
based Al Arabiya media outlets through investigating and ultimately analyzing
aspects of politicization and ideologization as incorporated into the news coverage
process by these corporations. This study derives its relevance from the influential role
both media outlets have been playing in shaping and reshaping the opinions, beliefs
and attitudes of Middle Eastern audiences toward ongoing developments and the
involved political actors in the region, besides the potential indoctrination believed
24 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

Spring 2019
to have been pursued by these organizations through certain discursive practices. In

terms of structure, this article begins with an overview of the rise and development
of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, followed by a literature review to provide insight into
key notions and relevant theories, such as Critical Discourse Analysis, ideological
discourse, and manipulation. Afterward, the research data are presented and means of
analysis are pointed out and explained, and eventually the data analysis and the results
are outlined and followed by concluding remarks.
Critical Discourse Analysis

Discourse is generally defined as a system of texts, including spoken or writ-
ten language, cultural artifacts and visual representations that bring about objects
through production, dissemination, and consumption (Hardy, 2001). Discourse
analysis implicates the study of language use and linguistic structure, the explora-
tion of social practices and ideological assumptions incorporated into language and
communication (Schiffrin, Tannen, & Hamilton, 2001:1).
The discourse framework developed by Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2001) is charac-
terized by three distinct dimensions of meaning, namely: text, whether in reference to
written or spoken language; interaction, which entails a multifaceted process of tex-
tual production and interpretation; and context, which primarily concerns the social
and cultural environment that surrounds the production and interpretation of dis-
course. Identifying these three aspects of discourse, Fairclough distinguishes between
three corresponding levels of discourse analysis, namely: description, interpretation,
and explanation. “Description” basically centers around the structures and meanings
included in a text, though it remains a hard task to distinguish between both compo-
nents in a text because “meanings are necessarily realized in forms and differences in
meaning entail differences in form” (Fairclough, 1995:57). The “interpretation” level
implies a certain degree of mediation between a given text and surrounding social
practice(s) throughout a process of production and comprehension with cognitive
processes involved. The final stage of “explanation” primarily focuses on the analysis
of explicit or implicit relationship between interaction and the social or general context
of production and interpretation (Fairclough, 2001).
Fairclough’s critical approach to discourse analysis is considerably consistent with
Wodak’s Discourse–Historical Approach (DHA), as they both view discourse essen-
tially as a form of social practice (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). The DHA is fun-
damentally based on three distinguishable levels of analysis: First, identifying the
particular topics, themes, or contents of a particular discourse that is driven by racist,
sectarian, ethnicist, or nationalist orientations or tendencies; second, pinpointing the
discursive practices and strategies underlying the topics; and finally, exploring the
linguistic means of the strategies employed in the discourse under study. There is thus
an intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between the texts, discourses, political
Abdulmajid 25
and sociological dimensions, historical and situational frames. Realizing such inter-
connections ultimately helps a discourse analyst to investigate “how discourses, genres
and texts change in relation to socio-political change” and gain a broad insight into
the development of meanings through the process of recontextualization or “the
transfer of given elements to new contexts” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009:90).
Nevertheless, the widespread and ever-growing interest in discourse and discourse
analysis seemingly stems from deeper incentives than a mere belief in what Fairclough
and Wodak would describe as a form of social practice. According to Jäger (2001),
discourses “are not interesting as mere expressions of social practice, but because they
serve certain ends, namely to exercise power with all its effects” (p. 34). Thus, a dis-
course analyst is principally guided by an urgency to explore ideological and pow-
er-related components of a discourse with the goal of analyzing and explaining its
connection to the surrounding social or political context via the interpretation of
the underlying meanings and objectives. The critical approach to discourse analysis,
known among scholars of discourse studies as Critical Discourse Analysis or CDA,
is aimed at shedding light on “social problems, and especially the role of discourse in
the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination” (van Dijk, 2001a:96).
CDA is essentially an interdisciplinary methodology of the study of discourse with
as an ultimate goal exploring how “social power abuse, supremacy and inequality are
enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”
(van Dijk, 2001b:352). This critical approach is mainly aimed at uncovering “the rela-
tionship between discourse, ideology, and power” as manifested in a written or verbal
discourse, be it explicit or implicit (van Dijk, 1993:249). In his extensive work in the
field of discourse analysis, van Dijk’s definition and explanation of CDA furthers
our understanding of this critical approach as “primarily interested and motivated by
pressing social issues, which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis.
Theories, descriptions, methods and empirical work are chosen or elaborated as a
function of their relevance for the realization of such a sociopolitical goal” (p. 252).
The multidisciplinary characteristic of CDA considerably enables discourse analysts
to delve into the specifics of discursive practices and examine the various aspects of
the relationships between language, power, and the social framework within which
a discourse takes place. An analyst is hereby allowed, and even urged, to investigate
potential discursive strategies utilized in a discourse by means of multiple disciplines,
including, but not limited to, psychology, sociology, politics, and economics. It is the
critical feature of this approach that triggers an extensive, in-depth research into the
different dimensions of a discourse to explore the concealed meanings and purposes.
Discursive Ideologization
Ideologies often dominate the thoughts, perceptions and beliefs of a social group,
which as a consequence, come to characterize that group in terms of identity, norms,
values, resources, and goals. According to van Dijk (2006b), ideologies are primarily

Spring 2019
“ideas” or “belief systems” that comprise “social representations that define the so-
cial identity of a group” and “control and organize other socially shared beliefs” (p.
116). Emphasizing the interrelationship between ideology and discourse, van Dijk
argues that the shared social representations produced and underlined by ideologies
constitute “the basis of discourse and other social practices…ideologies are largely
expressed and acquired by discourse, that is, by spoken or written communicative in-
teraction. When group members explain, motivate or legitimate their (group-based)
actions, they typically do so in terms of ideological discourse” (p. 121).
The perceived incorporation of ideological standpoints in discourses is deemed to
be a primary argument within discourse studies in general and the critical approach
to discourse analysis in particular. Carvalho (2008) maintains that ideological stand-
points explicitly represent “the most fundamental shaping influence of a text” (p.
170). Yet the notion of ideologies being embedded in discourses is believed to tran-
scend textual discursive practices into other forms of discourse, given the fact that
media outlets, for instance, use multiple platforms to reach the audience whether
through broadcasting, printing or online publishing. Nevertheless, it is the “semantic
structure of discourse” that constitute “the core ‘content’ of expression of ideological
opinions” (van Dijk, 1998:31). Thus, the ideological standpoints of an addresser are
being transmitted to recipients through utilizing a certain semantic framing and by
means of particular discursive strategies in a bid to get a message through.
Since this study mainly tackles media discourse, expressing ideological beliefs and
viewpoints within the framework of news reporting is basically considered a “dis-
cursive ideologization” activity. Given the media impact in shaping and reshaping
its audience’s beliefs and opinions, embodying ideological standpoints or promoting
specific political agendas by means of discursive strategies imply an attempt to ideolo-
gize the potential recipients, mobilize their support around the delivered message and
incite their advocacy concerning its objectives. Thus, within the framework of this
study, “discursive ideologization” is used in reference to the incorporation of ideologi-
cal thoughts — of politicized and subjective nature — into media discourse, which is
supposed to be objective and impartial in order to serve the society, especially during
news coverage activities.
Ideological standpoints could emerge in a discourse, whether written or verbal,
either explicitly or implicitly, which urge a highly critical and analytical observation in
order to detect its elements and analyze its aspects. A discourse analyst is required to
develop analytical tools based on a multifaceted learning process that fundamentally
entails an ability “to identify ideological standpoints from relatively subtle mech-
anisms and devices. Looking at alternative constructions of the same reality, such
as different media reports, is a helpful strategy” (Carvalho, 2008:170). Among such
analytical tools is reviewing a discourse “politically,” since politics is deemed to be
“contingent, plural and conflictual” (Carver & Hyvärinen, 1997:6), and may thus
draw attention toward potential alternatives to the account provided by a dominant
Abdulmajid 27
addresser. Hence, in a discursive context, politicization, as a notion of fundamen-

tal ties with politics and power (Adediji, 2016:93), forms an intrinsic dimension of
“discursive ideologization” in that it promotes politically guided messages of those in
power with the objective of influencing supposedly vulnerable recipients.
Manipulation
Over the past few decades, several definitions of manipulation as a concept have
emerged. Although these definitions may have tackled the notion from various per-
spectives, they are mostly centered around the idea of deceiving and misguiding
recipients by means of different discursive instruments. Goodin (1980) defines ma-
nipulation as “intentionally and directly influencing someone’s beliefs, desires and/
or emotions in a way typically not in his self-interest or ways that are likely not to
be in his self-interest in the present context” (p. 59). Ware’s (1981:149) definition
of manipulation fundamentally corresponds to that of Goodin, describing it as a
covert attempt to influence a recipient who either lacks basic knowledge of the ma-
nipulative attempt or does not understand the tools employed by the manipulator
to influence his beliefs and choices. Exploiting a recipient’s insufficient knowledge
about the expressed issue and lack of understating with regard to the incentives,
intentions, and goals of the manipulator is viewed by Wodak (2001:88) as one of
the most negative aspects of manipulative discourse. Other theorists went further
to reveal negative persuasion strategies utilized by the manipulator to misguide a
recipient in a way that merely serves the former’s interests and negatively affect the
latter. This dimension of the notion of manipulation was considerably emphasized
by Mills (1995), who maintains that “what is distinctive about manipulation is that
it purports to be legitimate persuasion that offers good reasons, but in fact, bad
reasons are offered.” The covert and surreptitious nature of manipulation reflect its
deceptive essence. As such, deception is accomplished by means of persuasion that
ultimately benefit the manipulator regardless of the interests and aspirations of the
manipulated.
Nonetheless, van Dijk (2006a:361) distinguishes between a positive form of
manipulation and a negative one. Positive manipulation, he maintains, constitutes a
part of persuasion attempts in a way that leaves the addressees with a space of free-
dom to either accept or reject the addresser’s arguments, whereas negative manipula-
tion implies a typical allocation of addressees in a mainly passive role where they are
seen as victims of manipulation. In this regard, Blass (2005) points out that manip-
ulative discourse aims “to affect the target in such a way that his behavior/action
is an instrument of attaining the goals of the manipulator, who acts without using
force but in such a way that the target does not know the goal of the manipulator’s
actions” (p. 170). Manipulation, according to Baron (2003), could take three differ-
ent forms: 1) Deceptive, by means of misleading the targeted audience, encouraging

Spring 2019
false assumptions, or enforcing an interpretation that is favorable to the manipula-

tor’s purpose (p. 40), 2) Pressure to acquiesce, mainly through offering inducement
or getting the recipient to agree to something to avoid further discomfort (p. 43),
and 3) Emotional, which implies eliciting emotions such as fear, sympathy, grati-
tude toward the manipulator or guilt in case the recipient resisted the manipulator’s
objectives (p. 44).
Hence, a manipulator is considered a power abuser who strives to impose control
over the recipients in a way that violates social norms and values. Discourse manipula-
tion is eventually an illegitimate exercise of influence by manipulators, primarily aimed
at enforcing certain beliefs and attitudes that serve the interests of the addresser and
contradict those of the addressees. Employing particular linguistic devices, includ-
ing pronominal usages such as “us-vs.-them,” throughout a manipulative discourse
reflect a covert attempt to establish “an in-group/out-group ideological discrimina-
tion” (Maillat & Oswald, 2009:356). In order to reach such objectives, a manipulator
usually relies on the effectiveness of his/her discursive strategies to (re)shape the audi-
ence’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Ideological manipulative discourse is believed to
be more effective and efficient “in societies where some conditions are met, especially
a state of crisis” (de Saussure, 2005:124). Hence, crisis conditions facilitate the accom-
plishment of a higher degree of impact by a manipulator’s ideological discourse, since
the addressees in this case are considered to be more receptive, vulnerable, and thus,
prone to manipulation.
Methodology
As this study primarily aims to examine the ideological discourse of Middle
Eastern media giants Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, a critical discourse analysis was
conducted on a set of media materials released by both organizations. The analysis
process implicated the use of different methodological instruments with the hope of
providing an objective and reliable analysis of the research data, which reflect the
discourse of the media outlets under study.
Research Data
The research data, included in this study, consist of eight articles published by
both media outlets through their official websites. The articles, presented below as
samples for analysis, are collected following an extensive online search and selected
on the basis of the relevant topics they tackle in terms of covering the Gulf crisis
and/or related domestic/regional developments. Search terms used as part of the se-
lection criteria included Qatar, Saudi, and Gulf crisis. These particular articles were
thus selected for content relevance, which has helped in reaching the objective of
this study, that is, to analyze the manipulative and ideological aspects of the media
discourse of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The analysis process has included both the
title and the text of every selected article. The data include:
Abdulmajid 29
• Al Jazeera:
○ Qatar-Gulf Crisis: Who are the ‘terrorists’? Feature/Middle East, Al Jazeera, released on
June 7, 2017. 2
○ Qatar rejects claim of supporting Syrian ‘terror group’. News/Qatar, Al Jazeera, published
on June 23, 2017. 3
○ Yemen: Saudi coalition air raids kill 20 at wedding in Hajjah. News/Middle East, Al
Jazeera, published on April 23, 2018.4
○ The implications of the Qatar-Turkey alliance. Feature/Middle East, Al Jazeera, published
on June 18, 2017.5
• Al Arabiya:
○ How Qatar funded international terror by paying huge ransom in Iraq, Features, Al
Arabiya, published on 9 May, 2018.6
○ Qatar says ‘no hypocrisy’, admits to PM attending wedding of terrorist’s son. News/Gulf,
Al- Arabiya, published on April 22, 2018.7
○ Qatar rejects evidence related to Iran’s involvement in destabilizing the region. News/Gulf,
Al- Arabiya, published on February 2, 2018.8
○ How a Saudi prison reshapes the lives of former extremists. Features, Al Arabiya, released
on May 7, 2018.9
The data analysis within the framework of this research was conducted on the
basis of a critical approach, which implies delving into the various aspects of the
media discourse of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and examining the discursive strate-
gies employed and the objectives sought by the concerned authors.
Means of Analysis
In order to conduct an in-depth investigation into the discourse of Al Jazeera and
Al Arabiya and explore the various discursive activities employed by both organi-
zations during the coverage of the Gulf crisis, a multidimensional methodology is
utilized. The data analysis process combines Blass’s manipulative strategies and van
Dijk’s ideological square as methodological instruments for the sake of delving deep
into the discourse of these media outlets and provide a well-founded analysis.
Manipulative Strategies
Described as manifestations of linguistic phenomena, a set of manipulative strat-
egies in discourse are defined by Blass (2005). Based on his theory, manipulation can
be conducted by means of omission, commission, or propaganda strategies. Several
subcategories fall under these three categories, as presented below.
Omission implies withholding information that could be crucial to the addressees’
understanding of a certain issue, development or event in their vicinity. Its passive
connotations are derived from the fact that the addresser intentionally and purpose-
fully keeps the recipients in the dark with regard to certain information.

Spring 2019
Commission takes place “if a receiver is active” with the objective of ultimately mak-
ing the addressee “acquiring or continuing a belief ” and eventually “accept” it (Blass,
2005:173). Manipulation by commission is accomplished either explicitly, known
as explicit commission, by means of exaggeration, minimization, lies or deliberate
ambiguities, or implicitly, defined as implicit commission, by means of delivering and
emphasizing particular tacit information.
Propaganda strategies include repetition and emotional appeal as key instruments
of discourse manipulation. In terms of repetition, Blass (2005) illustrates that the
“exposure to the same information again and again invites the addressee, whether
directly addressed or by information via media, posters, and so forth, to think about
this information and have it therefore easily accessible” (p. 174). This manipulative
strategy is deemed considerably efficient as a tool of persuasion, enormously influ-
encing the recipients’ beliefs and behaviors. The emotional appeal, on the other hand,
implicates attempts by the addresser to reach and touch on the feelings of the recipi-
ents in a bid to deliver a message, amplify its impact, and to increase the credibility of
specific information. “By appealing to the feelings of the audience, the addressees are
often more easily ready to accept, believe and act upon the propagated information
without thorough coherence checking” (p. 175).
Ideological Square
The theory of ideology, as a multidisciplinary approach, has produced a notably
influential notion in the field of discourse analytical studies, developed and pre-
sented by CDA pioneer Teun van Dijk. Largely known among scholars as van Dijk’s
ideological square, this methodological notion provides the basis for a subtle ideo-
logical analysis and the exploration of discursively expressed ideological stances. Van
Dijk (2000:44) has formulated four fundamental principles that form the ideological
square:
• Emphasize positive things about us.

• Emphasize negative things about them.
• De-emphasize negative things about us.
• De-emphasize positive things about them.
These four discursive practices constitute a part of a general strategy that im-
plicates positive self-presentation and negative other presentation. The ideological
square, as a concept and a methodological framework, “may be applied to the anal-
ysis of all levels of discourse structure” (p. 44). Hence, the content of the aforemen-
tioned principles could apply to semantic as well as lexical analysis of discourse.
Nevertheless, the incorporated opposing pairs “emphasize” and “de-emphasize”
open the path for various forms of structural variation to rise. For instance, whether
Abdulmajid 31
to extend or limit the emphasis on our positive features or their negative ones; either
in an explicit or implicit way; by means of either obvious or less significant headlines,
and so on.
An addresser may employ different discursive tools in order to emphasize or
de-emphasize information or meanings in an ideological discourse. As the seman-
tics of ideological discourse are deemed key to analysis, van Dijk (2000) identified
key aspects of discourse meaning that may assist analysts to examine the ideological
dimension of discursive strategies on different levels as part of the ideological square
framework. These include: topics, level of description and degree of detail, implica-
tions and presuppositions, contrast, and actors.
Thus, the positive–negative standpoints, as manifested in the ideological discourse,
basically reflect a state of dispute, crisis, or conflict between “us” and “them.” While
the term “us” is overwhelmingly associated with positivity in a social context, the term
“them” primarily refers to negativity as illustrated throughout van Dijk’s ideological
square, which constitute a key method of data analysis in this study.
Ideological Discourse of Middle Eastern Media: Analysis and Discussion

Al Jazeera Discourse
The Qatari government’s political standpoints and agendas toward ongoing
events and developments across the region is believed to have been constantly re-
flected in Al Jazeera’s discourse. The organization’s nonstop coverage of domestic
and regional happenings has been largely influenced by Qatar’s official position to-
ward them. The discourse of Al Jazeera is thus to be viewed as a lucid reflection of
the Qatari government’s stances and attitudes toward the surrounding political and
economic environment, as illustrated in the following analysis of some samples of
the outlet’s media material.
Manipulation
In Al Jazeera’s article “Qatar-Gulf Crisis: Who are the ‘terrorists’?”, the author
has employed a set of manipulative strategies in a bid to get the viewers to believe
that a covert plot has been hatched by neighboring states, led by Saudi Arabia and
in coordination with the United States, aimed at undermining Qatar’s role in the
region through accusing its government of suspicious ties to terrorist groups:
One wonders whether the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] will go down
as yet another in a long line of failed enterprises that got the patented Trump
touch…. Air Force One had barely departed Riyadh when the governments
of Saudi Arabia and UAE launched a well-coordinated diplomatic and
media assault on neighboring Qatar, attributing false statements to its ruler,
banning its news outlets, and accusing Qatar’s government of supporting
“terrorism”…it is clear from the rapid escalation over the past two weeks

Spring 2019
that Trump’s visit signaled the green light for the aggressive action by the
Saudi and Emirati bloc. (al-Arian, 2017)
First of all, the author employed “commission” as a manipulative strategy, both
explicitly and implicitly. “Explicit commission” is observed throughout the article,
especially when the US–GCC ties are addressed: the use of expressions such as
“go down as yet another,” “a long line of failed enterprises,” “the patented Trump
touch,” “Air Force One had barely departed Riyadh,” “rapid escalation,” “sig-
naled green light,” and “aggressive action” falls within the framework of exagger-
ation to consolidate an image of total submission by the GCC states to the Trump
Administration and its agendas in the Middle East. Implicit commission emerges in
the article through the emphasis on the baselessness of “terrorism” allegations in an
attempt to portray Qatar as a mere victim of some “false statements” and supposedly
ill-founded “accusations” by Saudi Arabia and its allies. Second, emotional appeal,
as a propaganda strategy, has been utilized throughout the article by means of advo-
cating Qatar’s position toward the alleged “aggressive action” by “neighboring” Arab
states who imposed a diplomatic and economic “assault” and blockade on its people
under the pretext of “false…accusations.” This kind of discursive practices are obvi-
ously meant to touch on the readers’ emotions and gain their support to the alleged
victim — in this case Qatar and the Qatari population.
The news report “Qatar rejects claim of supporting Syrian ‘terror group’” contained
such manipulative strategies as well. The report conveys a strong denial of allegations
made by Saudi Arabia and allies over Qatar’s involvement in supporting terrorism in
the region:
Qatar has never supported Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Syrian group formerly
known as al-Nusra Front, or any other terrorist group…. Qatar had always
abided by international laws and played a key role in the international coali-
tion fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group…. Qatar would
not accept any foreign dictations….” (Al Jazeera News, 2017)
This is an example of utilizing “implicit commission” in news reporting by means
of emphasizing the victimization of Qatar in the ongoing Gulf crisis. The report
hereby strives to deliver two key messages to the addressees: Qatar’s innocence with
regard to the claimed ties to terrorism on the one hand; and the state’s capabil-
ity to maintain and defend its sovereignty in the face of any foreign influence or
“dictations,” especially not from Saudi Arabia, on the other hand. Furthermore,
“repetition” as a propaganda strategy has been explicitly applied throughout the re-
port, particularly in terms of denying involvement in supporting terrorism in a bid
to convince the audience about Qatar’s innocence. A repeated expression of denial
arises in the text associated with “never,” “any” and “would not.” In order to demon-
strate Qatar’s innocence concerning terrorism-related accusations, the Qatari role
in the fight against terrorism is emphasized. This is clear in phrases such as “Qatar
Abdulmajid 33
had always abided by international laws” and “played a key role in the international
coalition fighting [terrorists].” Such a reversal, also seen as a discursive emotional
appeal, aims to show the recipients that Qatar is not only innocent of the accusations
about supporting terrorism, but has also participated in combatting it. This is an
attempt to convince the addressees that since you cannot support a certain group
while combatting it at the same time, the accusations would undoubtedly be baseless
or even ironic to utter or to believe.
Similar discursive practices have been observed in Al Jazeera’s news article “Yemen:
Saudi coalition air raids kill 20 at wedding in Hajjah”:
At least 20 people have been killed in two Saudi-led coalition air attacks in
northwestern Yemen…. Most of the dead were women and children who
were gathering in a tent set up for a wedding party…. At least 46 people,
including 30 children, were wounded in the attack…. Video footage of a
boy who survived the attack was widely shared on social media, showing the
child clinging to the body of what appeared to be his deceased father. The
boy refused to leave the body’s side despite pleas from first responders….
Saudi coalition air raids have repeatedly struck civilian targets during the
three-year war. The coalition says it does not target civilians but Houthi
forces…a coalition air strike killed 131 attending a wedding in the Red
Sea village of al-Wajiah…another air raid killed 43 people at a wedding in
Sanaban village…. The coalition denied having any role in both instances.
(Al Jazeera News, 2018)
“Implicit commission” has been utilized in this news peace through constantly
emphasizing information on civilian casualties caused by the Saudi-led coalition’s
military operations in Yemen in order to make the audience acquire or continue to
believe that the coalition systematically attacks civilian targets, and eventually “ac-
cept” the message behind the reported information (Blass, 2005). “Omission” strat-
egy has also been observed in this news article as the author intentionally withheld
details on the reported attacks and only focused on the outcomes, namely civilian
casualties. Moreover, “repetition” as a propaganda strategy has been used by the
author, which is obvious in the repetition of words such as: “at least,” “people,” “civil-
ian,” “wedding,” “attack,” and “air raids,” besides emphasizing that such anti-civilian
military assaults have been “repeatedly” occurring. This discursive practice is meant
to guarantee the audience’s constant exposure to the same information throughout
the article in a bid to create and affirm a belief about a supposedly regular behavior
of specifically targeting Yemeni civilians attending wedding parties by the Saudi-led
coalition. Discursive “emotional appeal” has been employed as well in the course
of the same article, basically through shedding a particular focus on the victims as
being mostly “women” and “children,” innocent “wedding party” attendants seeking
a moment of joy amidst unbearable war conditions, but unexpectedly exposed to
aggressive air raids by the Saudi-led coalition. Shedding the light on the story of the

Spring 2019
“boy” clinging to the dead body of his “deceased father” is meant to bring the readers
closer to the reportedly miserable reality on the ground and trigger their resentment
towards the coalition, its leaders and all what they stand for.
The author of “The implications of the Qatar-Turkey alliance” has also employed
such manipulative strategies:
A key ally of Qatar, Turkey is setting up a military base in the country —
the first Turkish overseas military installation in the Middle East. Qatar
also hosts the largest US airbase in the Middle East…. The defense cooper-
ation between Doha and Istanbul dates back to 2014, when the two nations
signed an agreement aimed at helping them confront “common enemies”….
Both nations have provided support for the Egyptian uprising and con-
demned the military coup that brought the country’s current leader, Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi, to power, they have both also refused to classify the Muslim
Brotherhood movement and Hamas as “terrorist organizations” and backed
rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in Syria…. The de-
fense partnership agreement came at a time of increased regional instability
in the face of a perceived waning of US interest in the region. But Turkey’s
involvement in the recent spat between Qatar and its neighbors marks the
latest demonstration of the country’s departure from its traditional “soft
power” policy approach towards regional affairs, reflecting an increased de-
sire by the AKP to expand Turkey’s influence as a powerful player in the
regional and global arena….Turkey already has a presence in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo…. Turkey is also reportedly setting up a mili-
tary training camp — said to be its largest overseas facility — this year in
Mogadishu, Somalia…. This is in addition to Turkey’s military adventures
in northern Syria…. The defense agreement defines the objective of the
mission as “developing Qatar’s defensive ability” to carry out joint training,
as well as missions the two countries agree on. (al-Haj, 2017)
In order to emphasize the strength, persistence, and endurance of Qatar in the
face of the Gulf crisis and the associated key players, particularly Saudi Arabia and
its allies, the author of the article has utilized explicit commission as a discursive
strategy. On the one hand, this strategy is applied by means of exaggeration re-
garding the Turkish military capabilities and influence, which is obvious in phrases
such as: “a powerful player in the regional and global arena,” “already has a presence
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo,” “setting up… its largest overseas facil-
ity this year in Mogadishu,” and “in addition to Turkey’s military adventures in
northern Syria.” On the other hand, a deliberate ambiguity is utilized in terms of
Saudi Arabia’s capabilities as a regional actor, with the goal of keeping the emphasis
on Turkey’s “influence as a powerful player in the regional and global arena.” This
could also be interpreted as a form of omission, since the author has obviously with-
held information about the actual military, diplomatic and economic capabilities
Abdulmajid 35
of Qatar’s rivals in the ongoing crisis while trying to stress the claimed remarkable
power and influence of its allies. In addition, the propaganda strategy of repetition
arises as another discursive practice in the article. In order to consolidate an image
of remarkably strong ties between Qatar and Turkey among the audience, the au-
thor uses and repeats words and phrases such as: “key ally,” “also,” “both nations,”
“both also,” and “join,” beside constantly emphasizing the Turkey–Qatar military
cooperation through repeating terms like “agreement,” “cooperation,” and “partner-
ship.” Such discursive strategies are primarily aimed to show Qatar as a strong state,
supported by powerful allies, in a bid to reassure the audience that Qatar cannot be
easily undermined by its alleged enemies.
Ideologization
By explicitly and excessively advocating Qatar’s position toward the surrounding
developments, Al Jazeera as constantly demonstrated attempts to ideologize its dis-
course, and accordingly the recipients, in accordance with the dominant political ten-
dencies of its founders, funders, and directors. Basic principles of van Dijk’s (2000)
“ideological square” are to be found throughout the news articles under analysis.
Al Jazeera’s article “Qatar-Gulf Crisis: Who are the ‘terrorists’?” refers to Qatar’s
regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt, as “some of the
most notorious violators of human rights in the region” who have launched an “aggres-
sive action” against Qatar based on “false statements,” after accusing its leadership
of “supporting terrorism.” Such statements are meant to emphasize negative things
about the opponents of Qatar in the region, describing them as “notorious violators
of human rights” and implicating their misjudgment about the Qatari government
through some fabricated, baseless accusations. The author also tries to de-emphasize
any positive features of/activities by these opponents through refraining from pro-
viding any information that might indicate actual efforts by these states to combat
terrorism domestically or regionally. This while the news article tirelessly emphasizes
positive things about Qatar, which is obvious in the following examples:
Qatar’s original sin was in attempting to forge a path independent of Saudi’s
traditional hegemony in the region… Qatar has tried to escape the looming
Saudi shadow… Qatar also gradually eclipsed Saudi Arabia as a regional
leader entrusted to resolve civil disputes, frequently hosting warring fac-
tions from Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories
for reconciliation talks…. At other times, Qatar supported the emergence
of alternative centers of power around the region, launching Al Jazeera net-
work in 1996 with the aim of bringing to light views that had been largely
suppressed by regional dictatorships, including those of the Islamist op-
position…. Unlike its neighbors, Qatar lent its support for the removal of
authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and generally endorsed the pos-
sibilities offered by a new era of political openness for repressed populations

Spring 2019
around the region…. Along with punishing Qatar for past offences, this
battle appears to be more about crushing the last vestiges of hope for any
independent political thought in the Middle East. (al-Arian, 2017)
The extensive effort to consolidate a positive image about Qatar and emphasize
the goodwill and noble objectives of its leadership in the various activities they have
been involved in, both on domestic and regional levels, reflect an explicit employ-
ment of ideological discursive strategies as outline by van Dijk (2000). The level of
description and degree of detail observed in the article about Qatar in contrast to its
opponents, as competitors and rival actors struggling for ultimate influence in the
region, indicate attempts to ideologize the addressees of such a discourse by trig-
gering their empathy with Qatar and their resentment and indignation toward the
Saudi-led coalition.
The news article titled “Qatar rejects claim of supporting Syrian ‘terror group’”
is loaded with comparable ideological discursive elements in terms of topicalizing
the exculpation of Qatar regarding terrorism-related accusations and emphasizing its
positive self-image in response to the alleged smearing campaign by its adversaries.
The following example phrases, extracted from the article under analysis, illustrate
aspects of the “ideological square”:
Qatar has never supported… al-Nusra Front or any other terrorist group…
Qatar had always abided by international laws and played a key role in the
international coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
group… Qatar would not accept any foreign dictations…. Saudi Arabia,
the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt severed diplomatic ties and cut off sea and
air links with Qatar, issued a list of 59 people and 12 groups with links to
Qatar, alleging they have ties to terrorism. The list included several promi-
nent Qatari charities that carry out life-saving work across the Middle East
and elsewhere, including in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Palestine. (Al Jazeera
News, 2017)
The key ideological aspect of the discourse observed in this article emerges in the
form of a striving and ardent attempt to portray Qatar as a good regional player. First
of all, an obvious state of denial toward accusations concerning links to terrorism
arises at the very beginning of the article, which can be seen as an evident endeavor
to de-emphasize negativity that has overshadowed the reputation of Qatar since the
outbreak and amid the escalation of the Gulf crisis. Second, in a discursive effort
to repulse allegations promoted by rival diplomatic actors in the region, the righ-
teousness of Qatar is emphasized by means of reiterating its firm commitment to the
international laws and its “ key role” in the global war on terrorism. Finally, the four
states that severed ties with Qatar are framed as misleading actors who have suppos-
edly fabricated terrorism charges for “Qatari charities that carry out life-saving work
across the Middle East.” Hence, the ideological nature of the discourse employed in
Abdulmajid 37
this article surfaces through the distinct promotion of an image of Qatar as a righ-
teous, virtuous state in contrast with antagonist regional actors supposedly pursuing
ill-founded political agendas.
Al Jazeera’s news report “Yemen: Saudi coalition air raids kill 20 at wedding in
Hajjah” represents another example of ideological media discourse in that it extremely
underlines violations by the Saudi-led coalition against civilians in war-ravaged
Yemen:
At least 20 people have been killed in two Saudi-led coalition air attacks in
northwestern Yemen…. Most of the dead were women and children who
were gathering in a tent set up for a wedding party…. At least 46 people,
including 30 children, were wounded in the attack…. Video footage of a
boy who survived the attack was widely shared on social media, showing the
child clinging to the body of what appeared to be his deceased father. The
boy refused to leave the body’s side despite pleas from first responders….
Saudi coalition air raids have repeatedly struck civilian targets during the
three-year war…a coalition air strike killed 131 attending a wedding in the
Red Sea village of al-Wajiah…another air raid killed 43 people at a wedding
in Sanaban village. (Al Jazeera News, 2018)
By dedicating the whole news article to a substantially eclectic emphasis on the
civilian casualties reportedly perpetrated in Yemen while withholding information
about the death toll in the ranks of the Houthi rebels under such air strikes, the
author strives for creating an image of a supposedly brutal nature of the Saudi-led
coalition and showing its forces as mere slaughterers of civilians. It appears as if tar-
geting Yemeni civilians, especially those attending weddings, is a systematic behav-
ior by the Saudi-led coalition. This ideological discursive strategy reflects attempts
to politicize news reporting in a way that solely serves opponents of the Saudi-led
coalition fighting in Yemen, particularly Qatar, by emphasizing any negative aspects
of the coalition’s operations and de-emphasizing any positive features or outcomes of
the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen.
Given the manipulative strategies employed in the discourse of Al Jazeera News
Network and the ideological nature of this discourse as explained in the analysis of
the sample data, we may conclude that this media outlet has turned into a mouthpiece
of Qatar’s government and a guardian of its interests, instead of performing the nat-
ural role of news media in objectively and impartially informing the audience. From
a critical perspective, following the news of the Middle East on Al Jazeera could
basically mean monitoring the region via a Qatari-manufactured lens and construct
an understanding about the developments based on Qatar’s political incentives and
strategic aspirations. Thus, audience ideologization, defined in this study as the pro-
motion and imposition of particular politically driven thoughts and beliefs on the
addressees of media discourse, lies in the core of the ideological discursive strategies
employed by Al Jazeera.

Spring 2019
Al Arabiya Discourse
The Al Arabiya News Network’s approach toward local and regional happen-
ings and developments has been enormously influenced by Saudi Arabia’s official
discourse and its government’s stances and attitudes. Al Arabiya’s discourse during
news coverage has constantly emerged in harmony with that of the Saudi govern-
ment, reflecting an apparent interaction between politics and media in a such largely
influential regional actor. The impact of the government’s political agenda regarding
the way in which Al Arabiya operates presupposes the utilization of manipulative
and ideological discursive strategies. Employing such strategies is believed to be ul-
timately aimed at shaping the audience’s opinions, beliefs, and attitudes toward var-
ious issues in a way that primarily serves the Saudi interests.
Manipulation
Al Arabiya’s article “How Qatar funded international terror by paying huge ran-
som in Iraq” represents an example of evident utilization of manipulative strategies:
Qatar funded international terror… the scandal involving Qatari hos-
tages… the militia that benefited from the payment of ransom money was
Kata’ib Hezbollah (Iraq), which the US government labelled as a terrorist
organization… Iranian-backed Shiite militias… most violent and most an-
ti-American of the militias… Doha breached its pact with Washington by
paying a large sum of money in ransom to an enemy of the US, which was
used against American interests in the region — other GCC countries, Iraq
and Syria… following the Qatari payment, Hezbollah came out with a new
look. It advanced and developed its public relations and messaging strat-
egies, new social media feeds and progressive websites in addition to two
highly advanced satellite stations… pay for the militias that fight in Syria…
the militias would drive them right up to the Saudi border… the militia
recruit… the Qataris paid hostile groups that are against the interest of the
US and the regional countries. (Aqidi, 2018)
“Repetition,” as one of the manipulative propaganda strategies, has been em-
ployed in this article in a bid to underline the supposed link between Qatar and
“terrorist” organizations in the region. The repetition of terms like “terrorist” and
“militia(s)” pop up repeatedly throughout the article in order to consolidate such a
belief among the recipients. Besides, “explicit commission” has been observed in the
text, particularly in the form of “exaggeration,” while addressing the reported “fund-
ing” of extremist militias by Qatar. This is evident in the reference to the outcomes
of the “large…Qatari payment,” which allegedly helped “hostile groups” to obtain
“developed,” “progressive” and “highly advanced” tools that have reportedly boosted
their capabilities and increased their impact. “Implicit commission” has also been
employed in the article in an attempt to portray Qatar as a threat to the American in-
terests in the Middle East. This has been accomplished through placing a noticeable
Abdulmajid 39
emphasis on the nature of the groups supposedly funded by Qatar, describing them
as “most violent,” “most anti-American,” “enemy of the US,” “hostile groups” and
“against American interests in the region.”
Likewise, the author of “Qatar says ‘no hypocrisy’, admits to PM attending
wedding of terrorist’s son” has utilized manipulative tools in the discourse
overshadowing this news report:An Al Arabiya recent exposé on Qatar’s
open relationship between government officials and known terrorist finan-
ciers has shed light on the country’s lack of seriousness on addressing its ties
and support of extremist groups… known terrorist Abdulrahman al-Nu-
aimi had been living out in the open despite having just been designated
as a terrorist by his own country a month earlier… the Qatari government
claimed that the Emir of Qatar has no authority to unilaterally jail an in-
dividual… the Qatari statement reaffirms the questioning of the credibil-
ity of Doha’s government over its support of terrorism…Trump denounced
that Qatar is a “funder of terror,” after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt,
and Bahrain severed diplomatic and trade links with Qatar in June of 2017
for its support of terrorist activities and groups in the region. (Al Arabiya
News, 2018b)
On the one hand, the author has employed “omission” throughout the article by
withholding details on the background of the Gulf Crisis and merely focusing on the
supposed Qatari links to terrorism as the sole cause of this crisis, a discursive strategy
primarily aimed at shaping the addressees’ understanding of the situation in accor-
dance with the Saudi version that has been overwhelmingly reflected by Al Arabiya’s
news reporting. On the other hand, manipulation by repetition has emerged in the
article, particularly by emphasizing and repeating terms such as “support” and “ter-
rorism,” indicating an endeavor to affirm Qatar’s cooperation with radical groups.
Moreover, explicit commission by means of exaggeration has been utilized in the
report through insisting that the alleged link between Qatar and “terrorists” has
been an “open relationship” and led by “government officials” which is supposed
to create a belief among the recipients that Qatar basically lacks “seriousness” with
regard to its pledges to the international community to combat terrorism. Terms of
exaggeration also emerge in phrases such as “its support of terrorist activities and
groups,” which reflect a manipulative strategy that is meant to portray Qatar as a
supporter of not only terrorist groups but also any activity of terrorist nature taking
place and causing instability in the Middle East. Such expressions are uttered within
the framework of this news article with an absolute certainty to be received as facts
and to eventually make a great impact among the audience.
The news report “Qatar rejects evidence related to Iran’s involvement in destabiliz-
ing the region” also contains manipulative elements that correspond to the predomi-
nant discourse at Al Arabiya:

Spring 2019
Qatar has rejected the evidence presented against Iran by Saudi Arabia,
the UAE, and Bahrain which proves its involvement in activities aimed
at destabilizing the region. The state openly rejected several pieces of evi-
dence simply because they were brought to light by the boycotting countries.
Doha also expanded and reinforced its cooperation with Tehran on various
levels…Qatar has chosen to ignore the American stance which condemns
Iran’s regional policies…Since the start of the GCC rift with Qatar in June
of last year, the Iranian-Qatari relationship has expanded; but fueled by
controversy and uninterested in White House administration statements on
the expansion of Iranian influence. (Al Arabiya News, 2018)
Manipulative strategies employed in the discourse of this news report include: 1)
Repetition, particularly through emphasizing the “rejection” of Qatar to supposedly
any evidence provided by “boycotting countries” that may undermine its current
regional ally Iran, a strategy that is meant to present Qatar as a supporter of the al-
leged “expansive” Iranian agenda in the region, 2) Implicit commission, by trying to
convince the recipients that Qatar’s rejection “proves” its involvement in “destabiliz-
ing the region,” as indicated by the use of certain expressions throughout the report
to deliver such a message, and 3) Emotional appeal, specifically in showing Qatar
as an “Arab state” that has chosen to take side with Iran against Arab states and has
been involved “in destabilizing the region” by its alleged support to “the expansion
of Iranian influence.” This kind of manipulative discourse is meant to touch on
the feelings of the audience by implicitly referring to a supposed betrayal by Qatar
against Arab brothers through siding with hostile Iran. Such discursive practices are
ultimately aimed at triggering the addressees’ resentment toward the Qatari author-
ities and justifying the diplomatic and economic blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia
and its allies against Qatar.
Ideologization
The apparent efforts of Al Arabiya to stress the supposed righteousness of Saudi
Arabia’s standpoint toward ongoing local and regional developments brought about
an ideological media discourse aimed at shaping the audiences’ beliefs and attitudes
within the boundaries of the Saudi interests. Key elements of van Dijk’s (2000) ideo-
logical square are observed in Al Arabiya’s materials under study.
In order to emphasize negative things about Qatar, which would primarily serve
the political standpoint of Saudi Arabia amidst the Gulf Crisis, the author of “How
Qatar funded international terror by paying huge ransom in Iraq” has topicalized
the alleged Qatari support to or ties with militias listed as terrorist organizations.
Topicalizing the article in such a way is basically meant to draw the addressees’ atten-
tion to the Saudi version of the story surrounding the Gulf Crisis, as the title clearly
presupposes that Qatar has explicitly funded “international terror”:
Abdulmajid 41
Qatar funded international terror… the scandal involving Qatari hostages…

the militia… which the US government labelled as a terrorist organization…
Iranian-backed Shiite militias… most violent and most anti-American of
the militias…. Doha breached its pact with Washington by paying a large
sum of money in ransom to an enemy of the US, which was used against
American interests… following the Qatari payment… advanced and devel-
oped its public relations and messaging strategies, new social media feeds
and progressive websites in addition to two highly advanced satellite sta-
tions… the Qataris paid hostile groups that are against the interest of the
US and the regional countries. (Aqidi, 2018)
The discourse employed within the framework of this article reflects a remark-
able effort to defame the Qatari government by labeling it as a notorious supporter of
terrorism and a hostile force to the United States’ interests in the Middle East. This
excessive emphasis on Qatar’s negativity implicitly presupposes that the Saudi-led
coalition in the Gulf Crisis includes faithful allies of the United States and true com-
batants against terrorism. Thus, such discursive strategies fall within the ideological
square as outline by van Dijk (2000).
Al Arabiya’s news report “Qatar rejects evidence related to Iran’s involvement in
destabilizing the region” carries comparable elements of discursive ideologization
essentially aimed at consolidating a negative image about Qatar while portraying
Saudi Arabia and its allies as the good actors in the Middle East:
Qatar has rejected the evidence presented against Iran by Saudi Arabia, the
UAE and Bahrain which proves its involvement in activities aimed at de-
stabilizing the region…. The state openly rejected several pieces of evidence
simply because they were brought to light by the boycotting countries. Qatar
has chosen to ignore the American stance which condemns Iran’s regional
policies…. Since the start of the GCC rift with Qatar in June of last year,
the Iranian-Qatari relationship has expanded; but fueled by controversy and
uninterested in White House administration statements on the expansion
of Iranian influence. (Al Arabiya News, 2018)
According to the discourse utilized in the report and the associated word-choice,
Qatar is to be viewed as a contributor to the destabilization of the Middle East.
Statements, details or information that may support the consolidation of such an
image are repeatedly emphasized across the article. This relates directly to the level
of description and degree of detail as pointed out by van Dijk within the framework
of the ideological square. The contrast factor has also been employed as a discursive
strategy by the author to draw a line between the supposedly good actors and bad
actors in the region, especially when referring to Qatar and Iran as destabilizing
forces while referring to Saudi Arabia and its allies as the parties that have un-
covered the involvement of the former in “destabilizing activities” in the region.

Spring 2019
The development of the “Iranian-Qatari relationship” has allegedly coincided with

the “expansion of the Iranian influence.” This kind of association falls under the
umbrella of “implications and presupposition,” which constitute one of the build-
ing-blocks of the ideological square. Such discursive practices are mainly meant to
put a constant emphasis on Saudi-positivity and Qatari-negativity.
Similar characteristics of ideological discourse have been observed in the article
“How a Saudi prison reshapes the lives of former extremists” in terms of stressing
good things about us:
Saudi Arabia is looking beyond arresting extremists and just locking them
in an isolated prison cell. The main aim now is to strive for long-term cog-
nitive and behavioral changes among inmates leading to a complete repudi-
ation of violence. (Al Arabiya Features, 2018)
The positive attitude of Saudi Arabia toward so-called “former extremists” is
topicalized to emphasize the good will of the Saudi authorities and their seriousness
in combatting terrorism through “reshaping” the lives of those previously involved in
terrorist activities by means of rehabilitation programs that “strive for long-term cog-
nitive and behavioral changes.” Emphasizing Saudi Arabia’s positive approach to-
ward former extremists implicates consolidating a positive self-image about the state
among the audience and presupposes its success in combatting religious radicalism.
By employing multiple manipulative discourse strategies and promoting certain
ideological thoughts in the process of news reporting, Al Arabiya News Network has
proven to be a representative and guardian of the Saudi political and economic inter-
ests in the media arena. As shown by the analysis of the research data, the organiza-
tion implicitly adopts the political discourse of the Saudi government, a behavior that
emerges in violation with the basic principles of professional journalism. Politicizing
the news reporting process entails an endeavor to ideologize the recipients in a way
that serves the ultimate political agendas of the party in power, which in this case of
Al Arabiya is the Saudi government. Hence, following the news of the Middle East
on Al Arabiya fundamentally means observing the region through a Saudi-designed
scope and forming ones’ thoughts and beliefs about the happenings and develop-
ments in the region on the basis of Saudi Arabia’s interests and strategic goals.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that the media discourse of major Middle Eastern
organizations such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is largely ideological and manipu-
lative. The data analysis within the framework of this study has revealed the utiliza-
tion of multiple manipulative practices by both media outlets throughout the process
of news reporting. Basic manipulative strategies, outlined by Blass (2005), emerged
as essential discursive practices and explicitly employed by both Al Jazeera and Al
Arabiya, as shown in the data analysis. Discursive ideologization has also emerged
Abdulmajid 43
in the media material under study, illustrating the use of ideological elements that
remarkably serve the policies of parties in power at both media outlets. This aspect
of Al Jazeera’s and Al Arabiya’s discourse has been analyzed by means of van Dijk’s
(2000) Ideological Square.
Al Jazeera’s employment of various manipulative strategies in its discourse and
the ideological nature of this discourse, as explained in the analysis of the sample
data, indicate that this media organization fundamentally operates as a mouth-
piece of Qatar’s government and a guardian of its political interests. This emerges
in contradiction with the natural role of news media in objectively and impartially
informing the audience. Following the news of the Middle East on Al Jazeera may
basically mean observing the region via a Qatari-manufactured lens and forming an
understanding about the events based on Qatar’s political incentives and strategic
aspirations. Hence, audience ideologization, defined in this study as the promotion
and imposition of particular politically driven thoughts and beliefs on the address-
ees, rises as a major objective of the ideological discursive strategies employed by
Al Jazeera. This also considerably applies to Al Arabiya as an apparent represen-
tative and guardian of Saudi Arabia’s interests, as the data analysis has shown, the
employment of multiple manipulative discourse strategies and the promotion of cer-
tain ideological thoughts in the process of news reporting by this media outlet. The
analysis of the research data has illustrated that Al Arabiya has constantly adopted
the political discourse of the Saudi government, which can be seen as a violation of
the basic principles of professional journalism. Following the news of the region on
Al Arabiya entails monitoring the region through a Saudi-designed scope and con-
structing ones’ understanding and beliefs regarding ongoing developments on the
basis of Saudi Arabia’s interests and strategic aspirations. In a nutshell, the politiciza-
tion of the news reporting process implicates an attempt to ideologize the addressees
in a way that primarily serves the political agendas and strategic goals of a dominant
party, which in the case of Al Jazeera is the Qatari government and in Al Arabiya’s
case is the Saudi government.
The results of this study may incite a cautious approach by the recipients of news
media toward the discourse used by media organizations in the news reporting pro-
cess, specifically for the potential employment of manipulative strategies and ideo-
logical discursive practices. Future research may focus on other aspects of media
discourse in the Middle East and elsewhere by means of different analytical methods,
as the CDA domain provides researchers with various means of analysis that may
bring about results beyond of what this study could provide.
Notes
1. Foran extensive insight into this crisis and the associated developments and regional conse-
quences, see: The Qatar Crisis. Project on Middle East political science. October 2017. Pomeps
Briefings, 31.

Spring 2019
2. Thefull version of the article is available at https://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/fea-

tures/2017/06/analysis-qatar-gulf-crisis-terrorists-170607062029222.html. Accessed on
February 2, 2019.
3. Seehttps://www.Al Jazeera.com/news/2017/06/qatar-rejects-claim-supporting-syrian-ter-
ror-group-170622211412128.html. Accessed on January 25, 2019.
4. Forthe complete text of this article, see https://www.Al Jazeera.com/news/2018/04/yemen-
saudi-coalition-air-strikes-kill-20-wedding-hajjah-180423102037150.html. Accessed on
January 28, 2019.
5. Seehttps://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/implications-qatar-turkey-alli-
ance-170618110726262.html. Accessed on February 1, 2019.
6. This article’s full text is available at https://english.Al Arabiya.net/en/features/2018/05/09/
How-Qatar-funded-international-terror-by-paying-huge-ransom-in-Iraq.html. Accessed
on January 3, 2019.
7. Available at https://english.Al Arabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2018/04/22/Qatar-says-no-
hypocrisy-admits-to-PM-attending-wedding-of-terrorist-s-son-.html. Accessed on January
5, 2019.
8. A f
ull version of the article is available at https://english.Al Arabiya.net/en/News/
gulf/2018/02/02/Qatar-rejects-evidence-of-Iran-s-involvement-in-destabilizing-the-
region-.html. Accessed on December 21, 2018.
9. This report is available at https://english.Al Arabiya.net/en/features/2018/05/07/Saudi-main-
prison-reshapes-lives-of-former-extremists.html. Accessed on December 28, 2018.
References
Adediji, A. (2016). The politicization of ethnicity as source of conflict. Köln, DE: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden.
Akpojivi, U. (2018). Media reforms and democratization in emerging democracies of Sub-Saharan
Africa. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Al Arabiya Features. (2018). How a Saudi prison reshapes the lives of former extremists. Retrieved
from https://english.AlArabiya.net/en/features/2018/05/07/Saudi-main-prison-reshapes-
lives-of-former-extremists.html
Al Arabiya News. (2018a). Qatar rejects evidence related to Iran’s involvement in destabilizing the re-
gion. Retrieved from https://english.Al Arabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2018/02/02/Qatar-rejects-
evidence-of-Iran-s-involvement-in-destabilizing-the-region-.html
Al Arabiya News. (2018b). Qatar says ‘no hypocrisy’, admits to PM attending wedding of terrorist’s
son. Retrieved from https://english.AlArabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2018/04/22/Qatar-says-no-
hypocrisy-admits-to-PM-attending-wedding-of-terrorist-s-son-.html
Al Jazeera News. (2017). Qatar rejects claim of supporting Syrian ‘terror group’. Retrieved from
https://www.Al Jazeera.com/news/2017/06/qatar-rejects-claim-supporting-syrian-terror-
group-170622211412128.html
Al Jazeera News. (2018). Yemen: Saudi coalition air raids kill 20 at wedding in Hajjah. Retrieved
from https://www.Al Jazeera.com/news/2018/04/yemen-saudi-coalition-air-strikes-kill-20-
wedding-hajjah-180423102037150.html
Abdulmajid 45
al-Arian, A. (2017). Analysis: Qatar-Gulf crisis: Who are the ‘terrorists’? Al Jazeera Middle
East. Retrieved from https://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/analysis-qa-
tar-gulf-crisis-terrorists-170607062029222.html
al-Haj, S. (2017). Analysis: The implications of the Qatar-Turkey alliance. Al Jazeera Middle East.
Retrieved from https://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/implications-qa-
tar-turkey-alliance-170618110726262.html
Aqidi, D. (2018). How Qatar funded international terror by paying huge ransom in Iraq. Al
Arabiya English. Retrieved from https://english.Al Aabiya.net/en/features/2018/05/09/How-
Qatar-funded-international-terror-by-paying-huge-ransom-in-Iraq.html
Baron, M. (2003). Manipulativeness. Proceedings and addresses of the American Philosophical
Association, 77(2), 37–54.
Berger, A. (2012). Media and society: A critical perspective. New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield.
Blass, R. (2005). Manipulation in the speeches and writings of Hitler and the NSDAP from a rel-
evance rhetoric point of view. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies
in the twentieth century (pp. 169–190). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Carvalho, A. (2008). Media(ted) discourse and society. Journalism Studies, 9(2), 161–177.
Carver, T., & Hyvärinen, M. (1997). Introduction. In T. Carver & M. Hyvärinen (Eds.),
Interpreting the political: New methodologies (pp. 1–6). London, UK: Routledge.
de Saussure, L. (2005). Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics: Preliminary hypotheses. In
L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse,
language, mind (pp. 113–146). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). London, UK: Sage.
Goodin, R. E. (1980). Manipulatory politics. New Haven, GT: Yale University Press.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 31(3), 25–47.
Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical
discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical dis-
course analysis (pp. 32–60). London, UK: Sage.
Kissas, A. (2013). Mediated politics and ideology: Towards a new synthesis. London, UK: LSE.
Kraidy, M. (2007). The Culture of Al Jazeera: Inside an Arab Media Giant, Zayani, M. &
Sahraoui, S. International Journal of Communication 1, Book Review 158-161. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pennsylvania.
Maillat, D., & Oswald, S. (2009). Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive
illusions. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 348–370.
Mills, C. (1995). Politics and manipulation. Social Theory and Practice, 21, 97–112.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). London, UK: Sage.

Spring 2019
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–283.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & D. Schiffrin (Eds.),
Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21–63). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Barcelona, ES:
Pompeu Fabra University.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001a). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods in critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001b). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, P. Tanne, & H. Hamilton
(Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(2), 359–383.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2),
115–140.
Ware, A. (1981). The concept of manipulation: Its relation to democracy and power. British
Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 163–181.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.),
Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London,UK: Sage.
Abdulmajid 47

Digest Mid East Studies - 2019 - Abdulmajid - Media and Ideology in The Middle East A Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Digest Mid East Studies - 2019 - Abdulmajid - Media and Ideology in The Middle East A Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Mid East Studies - 2019 - Abdulmajid - Media and Ideology in The Middle East A Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical

24 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

to have been pursued by these organizations through certain discursive practices. In

Critical Discourse Analysis

26 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

addresser. Hence, in a discursive context, politicization, as a notion of fundamen-

28 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

false assumptions, or enforcing an interpretation that is favorable to the manipula-

30 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

• Emphasize positive things about us.

Ideological Discourse of Middle Eastern Media: Analysis and Discussion

32 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

34 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

36 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

38 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

40 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

Qatar funded international terror… the scandal involving Qatari hostages…

42 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

The development of the “Iranian-Qatari relationship” has allegedly coincided with

44 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

2. Thefull version of the article is available at https://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/fea-

46 Media and Ideology in the Middle East

You might also like

2. Thefull version of the article is available at https://www.Al Jazeera.com/indepth/fea-